Category Archives: Gun Control

Post navigation

Let me begin by saying that I despise conspiracy theories. They cheapen tragedies and insult the memories of the victims. As a former member of the NYPD, and a New Yorker on 9/11, nothing aggravates me more than hearing morons like Rosie O’Donnell contradict engineers and architects with her version of how and why the Towers fell. And there might not be a person on this planet more annoying and chill inducing than Alex Jones. Continue reading →

There are few issues right now more contentious than gun control. One of these issues happens to be “false flag” operations. Actor Steven Seagal has previously sounded off on both. In an interview with RT, the action star-turned second amendment fundamentalist claimed “a lot” of domestic shootings in America were “engineered” in order to drum up support for gun control legislation. Continue reading →

As the world watched the events in Paris unfold on international news in horror, the lead singer for the Eagles of Death Metal Jesse Hughes lived the nightmare. He was performing on stage at the historic Bataclan concert hall when 89 concertgoers were gunned down in an ISIS attack at his own show. Continue reading →

Like anything that happens with the State involved, such as the events which transpired in Oregon recently, people are going to be rushing to the internet to do their own investigating. The footage released by the FBI of the road block incident which resulted in the death of militia member LaVoy Finicum can be found here. Continue reading →

One has to wonder why more and more people are clinging onto this dangerous agenda, but when you think about it, it most certainly can give you a headache. Why? When has socialism really ever worked? Sure it’s worked for some people(the socialists), but as a whole it has never been successful.

First off, Socialism and Communism are basically the same ideology. Socialists and Communists will argue against that until their heads explode. I have not yet met a single person who has been able to prove otherwise, it is what it is. Communism is just an extreme version of Socialism, there are no major differences at all. In fact, the Soviet Union called itself the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) from 1922-1991. The Soviet Union considered itself Communist, but as you can see, they were both because they are mostly the same ideology. Both are forced on everyone, there’s nothing free about that. But it seems when these folks hear the word “free”, they start salivating, some even foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog. It looks to me that all they care about is “free” stuff, not FREEDOM. Those are totally different things, it’s not rocket science. Nothing is free, someone is paying for it. With this type of system others are being forced to give up money to help others who may not be as successful.

Now we all remember that interview with that Hollywood clown Russell Brand and how he believes we should all embrace socialism. Ever since then, I have seen more and more people attaching themselves to this ideology. It looks like Hollywood is doing its job! Socialism calls for “redistributing the wealth” by taking from the “rich” to give to the poor. A modern-day Robin Hood they say. Well folks, Robin Hood was a thief and I’m not sure why anyone would ever think it’s alright to steal from others just because they are rich. Sure, there are some rich scumbags on this planet, but not all of them are. Even taking that into account, stealing money from wealthy people to redistribute to the poor people is wrong. Socialism if forced, there’s no way around that. How any socialist can go around talking about their “freedoms” being taken away while practicing their dangerous agenda is beyond me. It takes away an individual’s rights and responsibilities and passes them off to the State. We’re going backwards here, folks! Hello? Is there anybody in there?

Now let’s move to taxes. When someone busts their ass their entire life and builds a company, put their blood, sweat, and tears into it and turns a good profit, why should they be punished? Why should others get their earnings? They shouldn’t. When you take money from the more successful people it creates less successful people and it encourages people to be failures. So when there are more people in need of help from the State, the more they tax others? Good grief! This means that the wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands, and this is why you see such a monopoly on the money as it is. The economy slows down, enough that it can’t produce enough tax revenue to stay intact. How do you think the Soviet Union crumbled? Socialism uses taxation to promote economic egalitarianism and one of the goals in The Communist Manifesto is the abolishing of “private property”. This is what we are seeing right now in the United States. It’s been going on for a long time and it’s only getting worse. You cannot implement this system and expect true liberty, it will never happen. In fact, you are only making it harder for the people who want true freedom and liberty, and it’s pissing people off, including me.

Let’s move onto parental rights. You need to understand that socialism allows the State to control education. This means parents have no say in the education system. Your best bet is to home school your children, but when parents are busting their butts to make ends meet, that means they have to put more time into work. That means it’s nearly impossible to home school your children. Why would a parent want the State to control this? To me that is absurd! The curriculum the public schools teach is exactly what the State itself wants to teach them, how is that not dangerous? That is exactly the type of brainwashing a lot of us fight against, yet we have these people claiming they want their liberty. Like my comparison to the word “free” to freedom, liberty is not “liberal”, stop making that connection!

“How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” -Ronald Reagan

The above quote is so true. Whether you liked him or not, he is correct. I always wonder how many communists and socialists have picked up a book like The Communist Manifesto and actually read it. I have, and that’s a big part of why I’m knowledgeable on this subject. What’s that saying a lot of us say? Know your enemy. Well I know my enemy. Do you? If you’re a socialist, I can assure you, with me wanting my freedom and liberty, that puts me in that enemy spot, but it doesn’t have to be that way. You could stop pushing your government coercion on me and others who do not want anything to do with it, or you can continue to blindly push this agenda and destroy this country even more. You do have to make a decision though and I suggest you get on the right side of history before it’s too late.

Click below for out latest interview with Julia Tourianksi from Brave The World and listen to what she has to say about socialism and more.

(Natural News) It’s early in the news cycle on this story, so everything stated here may be subject to new information as it becomes available, but from what we know so far, the shooting in San Bernardino appears to be either a staged government false flag operation or an ISIS terrorist attack.

From what we know so far, this does not resemble in any way a “lone gunman” or an angry gun owner targeting someone he hates. The attack took place at the Inland Regional Center, a company that helps disabled people improve their lives with training, self-improvement counseling and more. No lone gunman shoots up a building full of disabled people.

When it comes to governance, especially in the case of a democratic government, the voters get to choose trusted leaders to deal with all the affairs involved in running the country. This means that the population entrusts the country to a few people, who are supposed to be accountable to them, responsible in all their actions, innovative in problem solving and selfless when it comes to executing their duties in office. During the campaign period, the leaders in question always promise the voters heaven on earth, only for them to get to office and fall short on all their promises. This is the situation in all parts of the world, and it begs the question “what changes in an individual when he or she ascends to power?”Continue reading →

The problem with repeated false flags and staged events executed for a particular political purpose is that they demand a commitment from the minds of the masses and it has to happen in real-time. You either get it right away that the event is staged or you don’t.

That is, you require “proof.” Until you receive that proof or, should I say, until you consciously register a series of information that convinces you that it must have been fake, you will choose to believe mainstream media news and accept it as truth.

YouTube reporter Redsilverj exposes the same ole’ crisis actor script in latest Virginia shooting. Alleged family members appear on TV the same day their loved one is brutally murdered. They show very little emotion except fake anger to promote gun control legislation.

Whatever is on the controlled US state-run news, let it be known that the AmeriKan populous is purposely designed to be witness of the event.

Words can’t describe how bad of a hoax the Virginia Shooting was. A guy walks up within feet of the woman he supposedly kills and stands there for over 20 seconds pointing a pistol and a camera at her …and she doesn’t even notice him?

The hypersensitive bureaucracy that is modern-day America shows its ugly face of tyranny once again.

In July Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire at two military installations killing five service members before he was himself gunned down by responding officers.

Amid the chaos Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, armed with a personal firearm, also discharged his weapon in an attempt to stop the mass shooting. It is not clear whether White struck Abdulazeez, but it can be argued that his actions certainly helped to deter further carnage because rather than walking through a military installation randomly killing unarmed victims, Abdulazeez was forced to engage armed defenders.

I’ve asserted for years that the U.S. Government is an amalgamation of the Third Reich, “Atlas Shrugged,” “Animal Farm,” and “1984.” Once again history is repeating. The Nazis’ contemporaries are the neoconservatives who are running the U.S. Government behind the facade of Obama’s White House.

Federal drug agents may be racially profiling and unjustly seizing cash from travelers in the nation’s airports, bus stations and train stations. A new report released by the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice examined the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s controversial use of “cold consent.”

In a cold consent encounter, a person is stopped if an agent thinks that person’s behavior fits a drug courier profile. Or an agent can stop a person cold “based on no particular behavior,” according to the Inspector General report. The agent then asks people they have stopped for consent to question them and sometimes to search their possessions as well. By gaining consent, law enforcement officers can bypass the need for a warrant. Continue reading →

I just want to start of by saying, this is normally not the type of story that you will see here at Authentic Enlightenment. But recently I was able to interview a former LAPD detective who was at one time working on two of the most famous murder cases in American history, that of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls (Christopher Wallace). Greg Kading, who is now retired from the Los Angeles Police Department and resides in Southern California with his wife and his two bulldogs, specialized in the fields of gangs, narcotics, and homicide. Greg spent most of his career working on federal task forces to investigate high-profile criminal cases in Los Angeles. He is also decorated with the Medal of Valor for bravery, Police Star for heroic action, and he reached the departments highest ranking as an investigator. Continue reading →

(The Truth) – Are you a conspiracy theorist? If not, perhaps you should be. Yes, there have certainly been a lot of “conspiracy theories” over the years that have turned out not to be accurate. However, the truth is that a large number of very prominent conspiracy theories have turned out to actually be true. So the next time that you run into some “tin foil hat wearing lunatics”, you might want to actually listen to what they have to say. They may actually know some things that you do not. In fact, one recent study found that “conspiracy theorists” are actually more sane than the general population. So the next time you are tempted to dismiss someone as a “conspiracy theorist”, just remember that the one that is crazy might actually be you. The following are 16 popular conspiracy theories that turned out to be true…Continue reading →

Second Amendment activist Adam Kokesh was arrested Tuesday evening following an armed raid on his home in the Washington, D.C. area.

Police have charged Kokesh, 31, with possession of a Schedule I or Schedule II drug while also in possession of a firearm. According to the Washington Post, charging documents filed in court Wednesday morning said that hallucinogenic mushrooms, a Schedule I narcotic, were found in the raid. Continue reading →

WEST PARIS, Maine — Maine State Police say a teenager from West Paris is recovering Sunday morning from gunshot wounds after being shot by a state trooper Saturday night.

James Reynolds, 18, is being treated at Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston, according to a news release from the Maine Department of Public Safety.

Reynolds was shot by Trooper Jason Wing as the trooper was investigating a report of a suspicious man along the Roy Road in West Paris, according to police. State Police said Reynolds was armed with a hunting rifle.

The shooting occurred at about 6:45 p.m. Reynolds was flown by a LifeFlight of Maine helicopter to the Lewiston hospital.

Wing has been placed on administrative leave with pay, which is standard state police procedure following a shooting. A team of investigators from the Maine Attorney General’s Office, assisted by state police, is investigating the incident and the final report of the shooting is likely to be released in several weeks. The Attorney General’s Office investigates all shootings in Maine involving police officers.

In the face of the outrageous IRS intimidation scandal now sweeping across America, gun control advocates are changing their tune. All of a sudden, the idea that the federal government could engage in tyranny against the People of America is no longer a “conspiracy theory.” It’s historical fact right in your face thanks to all the recent scandals now bursting onto the scene: IRS intimidation, secret targeting of non-profit groups for possible “thought crimes,” the Department of Justice seizing AP phone records and so on.

Just which liberals are changing their minds on all this? Piers Morgan, for starters. The man who once called Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America a “very stupid man” on live national television is suddenly reversing course. Here’s what Morgan now says in the wake of the IRS intimidation scandal:

“I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here saying to me, well the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government, and I’ve always laughed at them. I’ve always said don’t be so ridiculous. Your government won’t turn itself on you. But actually when you look at this [IRS scandal]… actually this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government. I think what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior, I think what the Department of Justice has done to the Associated Press is bordering on tyrannical behavior.”

Here’s the video: (until YouTube bans it)

InfoWars.com, by the way, is now publicly challenging Piers Morgan to admit the U.S. government has become “fully tyrannical,” not just “bordering on tyrannical.” It begs the question: If using the IRS as a political weapon to intimidate people over thought crimes, books, Facebook posts and prayers isn’t full-on tyranny, what exactly will it take for Morgan to admit a full tyranny is now upon us? The government knocking on his door?

Joe Scarborough also admits gun owners were right all along

Going even further than Piers Morgan, “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough also admits gun owners were right all along, saying:

“I have been saying for months now… that I believe in background checks. After Newton, after Chicago, we need background checks. And my argument has been, don’t worry,background checks aren’t going to lead to a national registry. The government’s never going to create a national registry, right? … I don’t have to even complete my sentence, do I? My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals. Because people say hey, if they do that with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights? This is DEVASTATING! This IRS scandal is devastating all across the board…”

Well yeah, Joe. This is what we’ve been warning you about all along, you see?

See the video here:

The core philosophy of liberals has just been shattered… government is not trustworthy and compassionate

To be a progressive / liberal person, you have to hold to the belief (i.e. have “faith”) that governments can never go rogue. Governments can never become tyrannies. Governments are always and forever trustworthy and compassionate.

Every progressive government policy logically follows from those core beliefs: government should regulate what people eat, control how businesses run themselves, monopolize national health care, grant amnesty to undocumented illegal immigrants, take all the guns away from the citizens and concentrate power into its own hands. This is all justified because you can trust the government, right? … RIGHT?

Enter exhibit A: The IRS intimidation scandal. The targeting of political enemies. Thought crimes. The IRS demands to know all your Facebook posts, the titles of the books you’ve recently read and even the contents of your PRAYER! The IRS then uses this information to selectively delay only the applications of non-profits that teach the Constitution, or patriotism, or are opposed to Obama. Can you say criminal corruption and total abuse of power? This is anti-American and traitorous!

Enter exhibit B: The Department of Justice, run by the nation’s top criminal Eric Holder,runs a vicious surveillance and secret police campaign against none other than theAssociated Press. When the outrageous behavior of the DoJ comes to light, Eric Holder claims, “I know nothing! Nothing!” (Same story for Obama… they knew nothing!)

Exhibit C: The Benghazi narrative pushed by the White House is now obviously a total lie, and this lie strongly influenced the presidential debates and 2012 election. The Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack — and the White House knew it! But they covered it up, lied to the public, and even stood down U.S. forces to make sure the ambassador was killed so that he couldn’t spill the beans on the U.S. weapons transfers being made to terror groups in Syria.

What do exhibits A, B and C prove? That you can’t trust the government!

The illusion of trustworthy government has been destroyed

Now the illusion of trustworthy government has been completely shattered. If the IRS would selectively intimidate and threaten Constitutional groups it didn’t like, what else is the government capable of?

All of a sudden those of us who warned everybody about gun confiscation, FEMA camps and false flags don’t seem so outlandish anymore. Now almost everyone realizes the government is capable of ANYTHING. Especially the Obama administration, which respects no laws and no limits to its power. (Drone strikes, secret kill lists, the continuedrunning of secret military prisons, bypassing Congress with executive orders, and so on.)

Now the Second Amendment makes total sense. Why do we even have a Second Amendment? The honest, blatant answer is so that as a last-ditch firewall against a tyrannical takeover, the American people can march on Washington with rifles in hand and shoot all the criminals dead. That is the essence of the Second Amendment — a last-ditch failsafe for liberty. The only real way to keep government in line, after all, is to make sure those who hold office know that if they become outright traitors to America and refuse to abide by the limits of government described in the Constitution, they might be shot dead by citizens who take their country back by force. (I’m not calling for such an action, by the way. I’m only explaining the historical context of the Second Amendment and what it really means.)

When citizens are well armed and have the power to do such a thing, that power should never actually be needed because the government fears the people and thus stays within the limits of power. But when the people are disarmed, the government fears nothing and so expands out of control, functioning as a rogue, tyrannical cabal of mobsters and criminals. Read your history books if you don’t believe me. This is the repeated story of government’s rise and fall throughout history.

Ultimately, this is why the Obama administration wants to take your guns away: Not to make the children safer but to make the citizens defenseless against government tyranny. And yes, that tyranny exists right now. The debate is over. The gun grabbers lost and the Second Amendment won.

Now, the Obama administration is permanently discredited, and the strength of the Second Amendment movement is stronger than ever. Just as it should be.

So I want to thank Piers Morgan, Joe Scarborough and all the other gun control advocates who are now rethinking the logic of their positions and concluding the government can’t be trusted after all. And if the government can’t be trusted, then it only follows that the citizens are the final defense against government tyranny. Furthermore, that role of citizen defense is only viable if the citizens are well-armed with rifles and hi-capacity magazines.

The more the government knows there are millions of law-abiding citizens who are armed and trained in rifle skills, the less that government is likely to overstep its limited powers and try to concentrate power in its own hands.

Several NJ Senators were unknowingly recorded on a hot microphone mocking gun owners and scheming for “a bill to… confiscate, confiscate, confiscate”

It seems that our State Senators in New Jersey look at the Second Amendment as a joke, and mock gun owners who took the time to testify at their committee meeting. Remember New Jersey may have the second most strict gun laws now!
The following link is to a You Tube video:

The Second Amendment, as the rest of the Bill of Rights, is an acknowledgement of our natural-born rights, not a granting. The entire Bill of Rights is about keeping the governments in their place. The Second Amendment is about the common person’s right to own weapons of war so that we can keep the governments in their place by keeping the ‘monopoly on force’ in the hands of the people where it belongs, as in ‘We the people.’ Remember that? It will not be infringed any further and the ‘gun laws’ in existence will be repealed. End of discussion.

Guns don’t kill, governments do. Gun free zones are the problem, they allow armed criminals to kill. Arm the teachers, the administrators and the parents. Don’t allow the “Liberal”(commie) trash who control the so-called educational system to teach mindless pacifism that is ensconced in their arrogance of false civility.

If we have violent criminals in prison who have been convicted of a crime and can’t be trusted with weapons why is the govt. turning them back out on the street? So they can point at them and say “See, the sheeple can’t be trusted with guns.” The ‘crime’ argument is a red herring.

Time to repeal all of the ‘gun laws’ including GCA ’68 and the NFA; Shut down the evil BATF Nazis and try them for treason, and murder where appropriate and distribute their retirement funds among their victims; Then enforce the Bill of Rights on places such as Commiefornia and New Yawk and Chigawgo and if necessary bring the troops home and have them restore Liberty here and remove Amerika’s natural born traitors in the process.

Millions will dig the ditch they are told to dig then wet their pants when the machine gun bolts slam home and die stupidly wondering “How did this happen to me?” The tiny minority will have to do what will be required.
It’s time to stop arguing over the culture war. It’s time to stop hunkering down for the apocalypse. It’s time to stop waiting to get beamed up. It’s time to start thinking Normandy.
If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.
The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.
What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?
Don’t understand? Go to willowtowndotcom and read the quotes page first. Then read my column “Prepping for Slavery.”

A few air-headed New Jersey State Senators proved that claim on Thursday when they had their own unknown “open-mic” moment. Though this may never compare to King Obama’s intimate moment with Medvedev, it has to rank as one of the top ten open-mic moments in the history of communist America.

A microphone left on after the gavel fell at a New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing Thursday shows the “true view” of some of the senators toward gun owners, and provides proof that gun confiscation is a goal on which they agree, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs revealed in an email to members and supporters today. The group is the official NRA state association.

“The discussion that was caught, apparently among several senators and staff, is outrageous, and reveals legislators’ true view of gun owners,” ANJRPC reports.

Interesting lines allegedly coming from Weinberg, Cunningham, Greenstein and company include the following:

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

“They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.”

“They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

“That’s the line they’ve developed.”

I personally don’t care about personal attacks toward gun owners and pro-2nd amendment Senators. Sticks and stones, as they say…

What should concern the people of the great State of New Jersey and Americans all across the land is this “confiscate, confiscate, confiscate” garbage.

It is unclear which of the Senators uttered these remarks but I have a message for her and all of her sexually retarded, emotionally immature friends.

MOLON LABE! Yeah I’m talking to you princess…

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. (1920)

Come on. You didn’t think I would throw those insults without a solid psychological basis for doing so. Did you? I’m no Sigmund Freud but when she repeats the word three times I feel like she must be triply-troubled. We had better get her on that confiscation list for the mentally unstable as soon as possible. She might be a left-wing terrorist in the making. Just saying.

Here is a video report on a Dallas store manager using his handgun to fend off an attempted robbery by five armed robbers. There’s also audio of the 911 call from the Dallas store manager asking for police help because of the robbery. Reports indicate he asked for police to come because the armed men had tried to rob his store. The storemanager shot at the men with a .38 Caliber revolver, sending the robbers scurrying away, and wounding one of them twice. But his call was misclassified because the operator did not understand he was saying in his frantic call that he had shot one of therobbers, and it took police an hour to arrive. In fact, it was so long, the manager went home and was called back by police when the did arrive.

Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.

Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center.

In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.

The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%. However, guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found.

The bureau also looked into non-fatal violent crimes. Few victims of such crimes — less than 1% — reported using a firearm to defend themselves.

Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased.

It’s unclear whether media coverage is driving the misconception that such violence is up. The mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year, Pew found. Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows in the past five years but has become less common on local television news.

“It’s hard to know what’s going on there,” said D’Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Women, people of color and the elderly were more likely to believe that gun crime was up than men, younger adults or white people. The center plans to examine crime issues more closely later this year.

Though violence has dropped, the United States still has a higher murder rate than most other developed countries, though not the highest in the world, the Pew study noted. A Swiss research group, the Small Arms Survey, says that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country.

Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates.

Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children.

The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes.

Just a little over a year ago, President Obama signed an Executive Order titled National Defense Resources Preparedness. This act stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy – both for and against. At one end of the spectrum were those that thought this was an overt act signalizing unilateral militarization of our country. Others felt this was a ho-hum restatement of existing presidential controls.

Whatever your feelings at the time, it is now a year later and events of the past couple of weeks bring more questions than answers to those who seek the truth. Sadly, it is my opinion that Americans are under siege by our own government and by the mysterious and secretive powers that control our elected officials. More and more, ordinary citizens are filled with angst as we witness the wholesale cannibalization of our freedom and of the Constitution.

To echo my own words: I begin to wonder whether there is some grand plan. Perhaps there is some master puppeteer poised to pull our strings when and if the rise to elitism reaches the pinnacle.

So with much personal angst, I have begun to believe that the rank-and-file citizens of the United States of America are being herded down the path to a Police State. Or, better put, will soon be running from the rising tsunami of the police state.
WHAT IS A POLICE STATE?

A police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

So let me get this right: A police state occurs when the government takes over control of the country by restricting the freedom of the population. Residents of the police state are required to obey the occupying authorities and may be punished for not doing so. They may be required to perform non-military, government-mandated duties serving at the pleasure of the chief executive, the military and the PTB. They may be detained indefinitely if considered a threat, rendering the protections of the Constitution null and void. And, finally, their goods and their lives become the property of the government.

TOMORROW HAS BECOME A REALITY

As someone who for the most part lives a quiet and even boring life, I find myself shocked at the reality of the recent Boston lockdown. Military patrols, door-to-door searches, curfews, involuntary disruption of transportation systems, cell phone surveillance and mandatory confinement to one’s home sounds more like Nazi Germany than America to me.

And what about the rights of the accused? Regardless of how heinous the alleged deed, this is still America where you are innocent until proven guilty. And no Miranda rights? What is with that?

The new reality is that the government may come knocking on our doors, ordering us to stay put. Do we fight or do we acquiesce? The answer to this question is complicated and requires a bit of soul searching as we try to separate fact from myth, reality from fantasy and conspiracy from paranoia.

LOCKDOWN VERSUS SHELTER IN PLACE

Another thing. Especially troubling is the recent widespread use of the term “Shelter in Place” to describe a mandatory lockdown where all day-to-day activities are forced to come to halt. In Boston, people were basically told to cower in their homes and to stay put. The term used was “shelter in place”.

Anyone who has been prudently prepping for the big one – be it an earthquake, hurricane, tornado or other disaster – knows that having the knowledge and ability to shelter in place is a good thing and not something to be feared. And it bugs the heck out of me to see this term abused by both the government and the media as they describe a lockdown and the mandatory restriction of movement.

Sheltering in place is something you do following the release of hazardous contaminants following a radiological, biological, or chemical event. And yet Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said:

We’re asking people to shelter in place — in other words, to stay indoors with their doors locked and not to open the door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer.

This to me sounds like a lockdown within the confines of a prison system. It makes me mad and is just one more indication that our government will do whatever it takes to discredit the preppers who plan and prepare for a real emergency.

ADVICE – IF YOU CARE TO TAKE IT

Notwithstanding the horrifying events that took place during the 2013 Boston Marathon and the short period thereafter, my advice, if you care to take it, is to keep living your life with your eyes and your mind wide open. Moreover, this is not the time to be a slacker when it comes to your preps.

Continue prepping in an ordinary and non-obtrusive manner by gathering emergency food and supplies. Learn coping skills for stressful times and practical skills that you can use if the lights go out and there is no power. Stay healthy so you can reduce your reliance on medical supplies.

Most of all, try not to become overwhelmed by bad news. But don’t ignore it either. Practice your faith and your belief in yourself. Just remember that you are not alone in your thoughts and that you must hang in there, prepping wise, to ensure your safety and long-term survival.

THE FINAL WORD

A lot has been speculated this past week. Was Boston a false flag event? Was there a cover-up? Was this a drill gone wrong created by the the alphabet soup agencies that are supposed to protect our country and its citizens? And was the reaction of public officials a blueprint for future attacks?

What is the truth and what are the lies? I suspect that with the abundance of disinformation being perpetuated by both the mainstream and alternate press, we may never know.

If you cower in fear when a bully comes after you, what is the bully going to do? The bully is just going to keep coming after you because his actions are being rewarded. Those that are trying to create fear love it when you become fearful. It is exactly what they want.

President Obama has side-stepped Congress by implementing portions of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty through an executive order which can be used to ban the import of all firearms, ammunition and related supplies and accessories.

While patriots across the nation rejoiced when the US congress rejected flat on its face an attempt to force the United States into the UN Small Arms Treaty just weeks later a more sinister ulterior motive has been revealed.

Today, President Obama by passed congress and signed an executive which gives the federal government a power to completely ban the importation of guns, ammunition and even parts and accessories related to firearms.

While the UN Small Arms Treaty would have prevented the United States from both importing and exporting weapons, Obama has effectively signed on to the treaty with his new executive order while allowing the United States to export weapons of deaths to covertly funded clandestine operations in overseas nations where it seeks to further its imperialistic agenda.

At the same time, with nearly every other nation in the world signing on to the UN Small Arms treaty, other nations are now banned from doing the same which further leverages the United State’s power of shotgun diplomacy in nations that refuse to be puppets for the globalist elites that control America.

Back in the homeland Americans now face a dire situation.

With the United States government already having complete control over domestic corporations the power to ban all international imports effectively create what is nothing short of a firearm and ammunition killswitch.

At the same time, despite our elected representatives rejecting such legislation flat on its face, dictatorial executive orders continue to be enacted.

Not only are we being subject to international rules and regulations mandated by the UN, without any representation in the process, we also not longer are being represented in major political decisions being made at home.

This comes as the media has spent the last several days repeatedly selling the public on the notion that it is okay for the government to suspend the constitutional rights of a citizen at anytime and haul them off to a CIA blacksite to be tortured in the wake of the Boston Bombings.

In this video BeforeItsNews.com staff writer Alexander Higgins joins Arch Angel to discuss the newly signed executive order and how it has effectively set the stage for the government to completely suspend the constitution.

This hard hitting piece from Mac Slavo at ShtfPlan.com explains the order in detail.

Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.

To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.

Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.

A direct on attack on the Second Amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavilytaxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.

The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.

If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?

Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.

Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.

Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.

To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.

Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.

A direct on attack on the second amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.

The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.

If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?

Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.

Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.

The law is designed to counter the push by liberal federal lawmakers for increased restrictions on gun rights. It nullifies any new limits on firearms, magazines and ammunition – whether enacted by Congress, presidential executive order or any agency.

If Congress would have passed the Senate amendment expanding federal background checks, for example, the Kansas law would nullify it in the state.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, signed Senate Bill 102 into law yesterday, which exempts Kansas from any laws the federal government might pass that would infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Specifically, the Kansas law prevents federal law enforcement officials from enforcing any laws restricting Second Amendment rights.

To ease concerns by some lawmakers over showdowns, federal officers would not be handcuffed or jailed, but they would be prosecuted.

The law is significant not just because of its intent, but because of who signed it. Brownback is a major political figure in the Republican Party who served as a congressman and a senator for the state until election as governor in 2010. Throwing his weight behind a “nullification” law lends credibility to a growing trend.

An impressive 32 state legislatures have now introduced pro-Second Amendment “nullification” bills. The progress of the bills can be tracked at the Tenth Amendment Center’s website.

Montana began the trend with its Firearms Freedom Act. The law is currently tied up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments last month. The Cato and Goldwater Institutes have filed a friend-of-the-court brief, “arguing that federal law doesn’t preempt Montana’s ability to exercise its sovereign police powers to facilitate the exercise of individual rights protected by the Second and Ninth Amendments.”

As WND reported, several more states have now passed laws modeled after Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act. Earlier this month, Arizona joined Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee and Montana.

The laws are generally justified by references to the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to firearms. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that citizens have rights not specifically listed in the Constitution. And the Tenth Amendment says states have powers not specifically given to the federal government or specifically denied to states.

Supporters of states’ rights have said the Tenth Amendment can nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional or beyond the federal government’s powers.

“Nullification” has been used as a legal argument to try to overturn everything from pro-slavery laws to Obamacare, always unsuccessfully. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law and that federal courts have the final say on interpreting the Constitution.

But with the momentum of 32 states having introduced pro-Second Amendment nullification bills, that may change.

“The courts can strike a law down. The executive branch could refuse to enforce it. People in large numbers might refuse to comply. A number of states could pass a law making its enforcement illegal. Or a number a states could refuse to cooperate in any way with its enforcement.”

Before it became law, Boldin called the Kansas measure the strongest nullification bill in modern American history.

A key provision of the Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act reads:

(a) Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

Boldin wrote yesterday that another key part of the law is that Kansas “would not be allowed to participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood in 1861.”

That’s because any federal laws undermining the Second Amendment would not be part of what Kansas agreed to when it joined the U.S.

According to Boldin, there is another key factor that may swing power in the favor of states seeking to enforce nullification laws.

He wrote, “The federal government does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws. State and local law enforcement often times carry the water during investigations and actual arrests.

“If states pass laws banning both state and local participation – in any way – with the enforcement of a federal law – that federal law would never be enforced.”

As WND reported earlier this month, a key supporter of Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act says nullification laws are needed to break a near-monopoly on guns by the federal government.

According to Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the “current federal scheme of regulating the supply system for new firearms in the U.S. is so complete it might actually constitute a government monopoly on the supply of firearms.”

“Under current federal regulation, no firearm may be made and sold to another person without federal government permission – not one firearm,” he said.

To submit to a government gun monopoly, he said, would be to believe “that the Constitution is an old, dead, obsolete and meaningless piece of paper, the Ninth Amendment is as worthless as the rest, and has no relevance to the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act].”

Derek Sheriff reported at the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center that Arizona’s bill asserts the state’s “sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people’s unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment.”

“They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States,” he said.

Kurt Hofmann of the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner said the surging movement across the states is “a challenge to the federal government’s grotesquely expansive use of the interstate commerce to regulate – well … everything, whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce or not.”

“Liberty doesn’t just happen – it needs to be worked for,” he said. “Getting that work done can make the difference between having to work for liberty, and having to fight for it.”

Marbut, who has described himself as the godfather of the Firearms Freedom Act movement, has reported previously that while the Constitution’s Commerce Clause can be viewed as regulating interstate commerce, it also can be viewed as having been modified when the later Second Amendment assuring citizens of the right to own weapons was adopted.

No less significant, he suggests, is the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Boldin said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.

“I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case,” he told WND. “When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws.”

WND reported that when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”

The penalties could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.

But the bellwether likely is to be the lawsuit agaisnt the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.

“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

Still, Mr. Bloomberg argued the attacks shouldn’t be used as an excuse to persecute certain religions or groups.

“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

Recent mass shootings and now bombings have not been as effective at stripping our rights in America as sinister factions of the government planed, and the general public is not buying the rhetoric anymore.

OpEd

The events that took place on September 11, 2001 regarding the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the beginnings of what became a mass awakening of the population. This awakening continues to this day at an exponential rate.

Millions and millions of Americans are now seeing the writing on the walls as the rhetoric gets worse like with the most recent terror ploy, the Boston Marathon bombings.

It’s amazing watching the progression of the American people as a lot of us questioned even the events of the Sandy Hook School shooting as nothing seemed to fit.

We also have seen time and time again that live drills have typically been conducted during such attacks, setting a predictable fingerprint for staged terror.

Now with the most recent lash of terror, people question.

Please take time to listen to a logical breakdown by a concerned citizen.

Nancy Pelosi has been sworn into Congress eleven times. Each time, she has taken the same oath to defend the American Constitution. This oath states, in relevant part, that “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same….”

Proving that both her listening and critical thinking skills are a bit sub par, Pelosi believes she’s taken a different oath, one that obligates her and her fellow Congressmen to “protect and defend the constitution and the American people.” In other words, based on an imaginary oath to protect and defend the American people, she is violating her real oath to protect and defend the American Constitution.

After President Obama’s aggressive push for gun control went down in flames on Wednesday, Pelosi immediately promised the American people that she would continue to ignore her oath of office and, instead, attack the Constitution. During a press conference, she announced that gun control is “inevitable.” Said Pelosi, “It’s a matter of time. It might be inconceivable to the NRA that this might happen; it’s inevitable to us.”

Ignoring that recent polls show that only 4% of the American people give the gun control issue priority in their lives, Pelosi blithely announced that “Something must be done, because that’s what the American people expect and what they deserve. We’re just not taking no for an answer.”

It always makes me wonder at a time like this how important we each think we are, that any one of us thinks our survival politically is more important than the safety of our children, that we can’t have the courage to take a vote. You’re afraid of the gun lobby? How about the fear of the children who had to face that violence in the classroom?

Now that you’ve had a moment to laugh at Pelosi’s ignorance and irrational thinking, remember that this is not the time for those who genuinely support the Constitution to relax. The Left, in its overwhelming arrogance, will never stop its quest to disarm American citizens. Because we know human nature, and because we know evil exists, we also know that there will be other Sandy Hooks, and that the Progressives will again try not to let a crisis go to waste.

Even though the gun bills died in the Senate, they didn’t in Connecticut, or New York, or Colorado, or Maryland. It’s up to us to remind other Americans that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If we give up on this message, then the next time something bad happens, or the time after that, or even the time after that, Nancy Pelosi will win.

Are we allowed to talk about martial law, the militarization of police, and the complete shutdown of cities on command? Or will that get the glorious law enforcers to storm and kick in our own doors now? Just what are the rules in effect today? Just what sort of precedent is being set here right before our eyes?

It was your commoner citizens who located the Boston bombing suspect after finding him hiding in a boat. This was after the martial law decree had arbitrarily been lifted, and it was now ordered permissible to go out in one’s backyard again.

Is martial law the answer to sticky incidents with fleeing suspects? Can this now apply to any suspects or any manhunt in the United States, anywhere, for any reason?

One might argue that clearing the streets under military decree is very useful for a particular purpose when pursuing a suspect: allowing a “free fire zone” of automatic .40 caliber hollow point gunfire, the known preference of the new “Homeland Security” apparatus. So what precedents are we setting now, in terms of rewriting the entire law enforcement paradigm, arguably a much more serious concern than a single 19-year-old bleeding suspect. Yeah. What the fuck actually happened last week in Boston?

Governor Deval Patrick took an unprecedented security step, asking people in Boston, Watertown, and several other nearby communities — totaling a million people — to “shelter in place” — stay at home behind locked doors and open up only to police officers with proper identification.” – Boston Globe

“Asking?” Martial law is just a friendly request, and the Globe dutifully disseminates. CBS News counts “thousands of heavily armed law enforcement officers and scores of military-style tactical vehicles,” but is quick to have an expert standing by to justify it as “perfect sense.” Just perfect. All that for one bleeding, injured 19-year-old.

One wonders how many tank divisions and predator squadrons might have been called in if this was one of the much-fabled “cells” we hear so much about on TV. I’m not disputing the need to capture the suspect, an obviously dangerous person, given what he is accused of doing. I am disputing the federal intervention, the military suspension of the Constitution and the militarization of local policing – all greatly warned about numerous times as we descend into outright authoritarianism, clamoring for the federal troops and toys to come and save us. Not only were the public politely “asked” to stay within their homes, authorities also pushed the “media back further and further from the action unfolding (CBS).” This bodes well for a free and open society.

In the midst of all this bombing hysteria the House of Representatives (sic) passed CISPA, with more government/private sector spying. Less accountability for the mishandling of your private data, and more total information awareness totalitarianism is ensured. That is the direction that every single one of these bills travels, bar none. Nearly every act of Congress concerning security of any sort increases government and corporate surveillance powers, diminishes accountability, oversight and the public’s right to challenge their own surveillance by authorities both public and private. We are living more and more in The Matrix, with 4th Amendment protections now considered “quaint” and of a bygone era that no longer has any relevance today.

Praise for surveillance cameras has been noted since Boston with calls for more public surveillance, more facial recognition, more integration of things like traffic cameras and license plate readers.

I think CCTV cameras are much more needed in urban areas. – Rep. Peter King (R), New York, House Committee on Homeland Security

Of course he does. He thought that before this latest photo-op. The answer is always more security, more surveillance, more intrusion, and less individual protection from government and from the private corporate sector.

A tremendous catharsis overwhelmed Boston with the announced capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as if that explained and ended everything. When you enact martial law with thousands of machine gun wielding stormtroopers and armored personnel carriers in the streets, and then make them go away, the people will be grateful. No doubt.

But this is where the story should be entering a new phase of discovery, intense investigation and disclosure. Sorry Boston; this is far from the end.

It was the FBI, apparently, who had monitored the two Chechen brothers for years, according to their own mother. Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva claims the FBI had contacted her and her sons repeatedly over the past 5 years. She even claims that the two were “controlled” by the Feds and “set up” in some kind of sting operation. If that sounds baseless, well we have already had an admission by FBI that they “interviewed” the older brother Tamerlan back in 2011. Further, the Wall Street Journal reports that this FBI interview was in response to a “request by the Russian government.”

Scratch the vinyl. Say what?

Russian intelligence / counter-terrorism is already reported to have asked FBI to check out the older brother, now deceased, whom the FBI says blew up bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon. The FBI admits to talking to this suspect. They then claim, absurdly to have “closed the file” because they allegedly found nothing “suspicious.”

Do these suspected terrorist files even get closed at all? We’re straining credulity here.

Magnitudes more disturbing than any of that is the actual on-the-record activity by the FBI in at least 17 “terrorism” cases with so-called “foiled plots” since the 9/11 attacks. What the FBI does routinely – and this is not in dispute – is to orchestrate terror bombings with targeted individuals. These bombings are suggested and assisted by an undercover FBI provocateur. Often fake explosives and arms are provided. The targeted individuals are strictly monitored, and then set up and arrested with spectacular headlines and a grateful public that was saved from yet another act of senseless terror. The plots are provoked by the government itself in a controversial practice that many call “entrapment.”

Was the Boston Marathon bombing such a case of a sting that was somehow allowed to succeed?

What is the evidence?

Little is known about the operational planning, other than a vague claim by the boys’ mother alleging “control” and “set up.” However, some highly suspicious evidence has emerged from the bombing incident itself. Two main things remain unexplained, and corporate media has not, to my knowledge, investigated the most disturbing evidence the public has seen so far. This corporate media blackout is indicative of unreported, behind the scenes answers likely given by authorities when nosy reporters inquire about these matters.

First: We have the cross-country coach from the University of Mobile, AL saying that authorities announced “training exercises” by the bomb squad at the start of the race. Bomb sniffing dogs were present and used, according to Alastair (“Ali”) Stevenson, who ran the race. Repeated public address announcements told the runners and spectators to “…not worry, this is just a training exercise.”

A lengthy list of justifiable questions springs to mind, which any reporter worth his lunch would immediately want to ask. Yet, none of these questions, and none of the responses to them were published last week. But how could that be?

Let’s start with the absurdity of running a “training exercise” with the bomb squad in the middle of a sprawling, 26-mile-long, city-wide event that draws 500,000 spectators and more than 22,000 runners. It’s not really a time for an “exercise,” but a time to actually protect the public, no? Am I out of line here? I’m sure someone will inform me if I am.

Is this phrase “training exercise” a public relations lie to calm the sheeple, when in fact it is not an “exercise” at all, but a live security detail searching for possible explosives?

Other obvious questions concern who participated in this exercise? Which agencies and which private entities? What were the specifics of the exercise? Did this alleged exercise open up security holes by giving away critical information about security procedures to numerous parties beyond the control of law enforcement? Were explosives, real or fake, involved? Why is information regarding this exercise covered up?

The little matter of who was involved brings up big main question number two.

Second: Photographic images from the finish line / bombing of the Boston Marathon show a collection of suspicious characters acting in some semi-official capacity. What little can be discerned from the photos suggests they may be military mercenary contractors, possibly from a company called Craft International.

These men wore large black backpacks, very similar to the exploded backpack seen in photos immediately after the bombing. They also stand in positions very near the location of one of the bombs. They communicate with one another. One seems to hold a device in hand, perhaps a radiation detector. Others, who are dressed identically, rush over to a FBI bomb squad truck, which arrives minutes after the detonations. They talk with FBI personnel.

This all suggests that these men were coordinating with the FBI bomb squad all along. Is this the “exercise?” It also suggests that the FBI’s bomb squad (a federal entity) was already present before the bombings even happened. Why is a federal bomb squad unit at a marathon race even before bombings occur?

I’ll unload just one more question, concerning these mysterious, unnamed operatives. How can private military mercenaries be involved in any way, shape or form with domestic security on US streets, and notably at an event that turned out to be highly insecure, in the extreme?

Perhaps our society has reached that tipping point into utter insanity and breakdown.

The two brothers Tsarnaev have been established by the FBI as the only perpetrators, the onlysuspects, the only reason for the Boston bombings to have occurred. An FBI press conference went so far as to caution the entire media and public against looking elsewhere:

For clarity these images should be the only ones, I emphasize the only ones, that the public should view to assist us. Other photos should not be deemed credible and they unnecessarily divert the public’s attention in the wrong direction and create undo work for vital law enforcement resources. – Special Agent Rick DesLauriers, the head of the FBI’s Boston office

I find it hard to interpret this diktat as anything other than a direct order to narrow one’s thinking and evidentiary standards. The entire nation has been cautioned that all other evidence is to be deemed by the civilized world as not “credible.” As George W. Bush said a decade prior, at the United Nations: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…”

One might expect such direct state orders inside Soviet Russia, but in our allegedly free society with its proudly proclaimed “free press” this is disturbing. The FBI has just discredited the entire concept of investigative journalism and assumed the role of sole authority on all information related to this case. The media is cautioned not to entertain any additional facts, no matter how they may appear to bear on the case. Nothing that doesn’t come directly from the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to be considered “credible” by anyone. Period.

So, is this the end of the so-called “free society?” Land of the free, home of the brave? Or is our new paradigm the land of the surveilled and controlled, home of the cowering, with martial law and propaganda for all?

And with so many thousands upon thousands of law enforcers available at the touch of a button, how about sending, say, one of them to investigate at least 14 counts of manslaughter and massive criminal negligence at that Texas fertilizer plant explosion? Or is that not in the script?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lies in critical condition since Friday evening, but as of Sunday morning:

The intense hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers illustrates another way that the National Rifle Association helps mass murderers — by delaying how quickly they can be identified.

The inability to quickly track the gunpowders in the Boston bombs is due to government policy designed and promoted by the NRA, which has found a way to transform every massacre associated with weapons into an opportunity for the munitions companies that sustain it to sell more guns, gunpowder and bullets.

The price for such delays was put on terrible display Friday morning when the two brothers, who had been caught on video placing the bombs, killed one police officer, wounded another and carjacked a motorist, creating conditions so unsafe that the 7th largest population center in America spent Friday on lockdown.

But for the NRA-backed policy of not putting identifiers known as taggants in gunpowder, law enforcement could have quickly identified the explosives used to make the bombs, tracking them from manufacture to retail sale. That could well have saved the life of Sean Collier, the 26-year-old MIT police officer who was gunned down Thursday night by the fleeing bomb suspects.

Had the suspects in the Boston bombings killed by slipping poison into bottled water or canned food at a factory, or lacing spinach in a field with a deadly chemical, it would have taken only minutes to a few hours to identify exactly where that food was manufactured and how it moved through the food chain. That would have quickly narrowed the search for suspects.

According to Vice President Biden, “President Obama literally has a buttload of executive actions coming down the pike” on gun control, the phrasing of which stirs disturbing surrealist images in my mind.

Okay, I paraphrased him. His actual words were, “[T]he president is already lining up some additional executive actions he’s going to be taking later this week.” I still can’t tell, Biden–are you speaking literally or figuratively? You haven’t specified!

You know what? On second thought, I think a ”literal buttload of executive actions” would be less disturbing than “additional executive actions.” This is of course doublespeak for “executive orders,” a term this administration has been cautious to avoid, despite running the government on these orders. Liberals don’t like executive orders—or at least they pretend not to—so this administration uses the term “executive action.”

Obama spent his first term trying to get Congress to pass the most unpopular legislation of modern times, socialized health insurance, in the form of Obamacare. That was at a time when healthcare was at the bottom of Americans’ list of priorities for our benevolent leaders to work on.

Obama won that battle as only a corrupt politician can: unfairly, with bribes.

The President has chosen the battle to waste his second term on, and that is gun control, yet another issue near the bottom of Americans’ list of priorities. Fortunately for them (us), it appears as though Obama has lost, with the Senate voting down the Manchin-Toomey background-check bill.

Obama was visibly angry the other day, pouting at the podium to publicly shame those who voted against the bill, which would have expanded background checks to personal and gun-show sales, but only for law-abiding citizens–those who don’t commit mass-shootings–and not to those who would commit mass-shootings since those people don’t submit to background checks.

“No matter,” says Biden, as paraphrased by me again. “We don’t like the way the vote turned out, so Obama’s going to ignore the vote, bypass the rules, and just write his own laws from the Oval Office. What do you think this is, a constitutional republic? You think it matters whether your representatives represent you or not? We in the executive branch make the rules, not your representatives.”

You have to wonder at some point if this administration really does believe that congressional voting procedures are a mere formality they must go through, the hoops through which they must jump in order to keep up the illusion that the will of the American people is represented. They are either knowingly being tyrannical, dictatorial, or else they do not understand that voting in Congress is not just for show. As in so many other areas of this administration, it comes down to those two possibilities: either Obama’s failures stem from a place of malice and ill will, or from a cavity in his brain that renders him incompetent and ignorant.

President Barack Obama lashed out defiantly and viciously at political opponents who defeated his efforts to expand federal gun regulations today. Standing with families of victims of the Newtown school shooting at the White House, the president claimed that opponents of expanded federal background checks had “no coherent arguments” for their position, and that the “gun lobby” had “willfully lied” in the course of the debate.

The administration’s defeat came earlier Wednesday, when the Senate failed to pass a cloture motion to end debate on a bipartisan proposal introduced by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Only 54 votes of the necessary 60 votes could be found to support an expanded federal background check system (among other changes), partly because of fears that extending such checks would require the creation of a federal gun registry that could lead to confiscation.

The failure brought an end to four months of fervent campaigning by the president during which he used the Newtown disaster–or, in the eyes of many critics, exploited it–to make an argument about the urgent need for new laws, even if such laws would not have prevented the Newtown atrocity itself. Many Democrats rallied behind him, hoping at first to pass a new assault weapons ban, then abandoning that effort for more modest regulations.

Along the way, the administration lost the support of Democratic Senators in conservative states, many of whom will face re-election in 2014. President Obama made clear his intention to use Wednesday’s defeat to rally supporters against Republicans, whom he blamed directly and angrily, suggesting that they had defied the will of the American people and attempted to silence the families of Newtown victims who had a “right” to be heard in the debate.

Forced to cover a rare political defeat for the president, the mainstream media largely echoed his emotions. Virtually all of CNN’s correspondents agreed that the Manchin-Toomey bill had been defeated because of the power of the National Rifle Association and the fear of politicians afraid to take on Second Amendment activists. None considered that support for gun control has been declining, or that the legislation itself was deeply flawed.

Again and again, President Obama noted that 90% of Americans, and a majority of National Rifle Association members, supported expanded background checks. The former constitutional law lecturer seemed to expect that that majority’s will should be self-executing, ignoring the fact that constitutional rights like the Second Amendment exist precisely to protect minorities against majoritarian passions and presidential demagoguery.

Indeed, while the president described the failure of the legislation as a failure of “Washington,” it was also–and primarily–a failure of his administration. A White House operation and Obama campaign apparatus that is regarded as brutally effective ought to have been able to sell a proposal allegedly supported by 90% of the voting public. Yet persistent troubles in execution and failures of policy raise questions about whether Obama secretly preferred failure to success.

His opponents, the president insisted, refused to make it more difficult for “dangerous criminals” to buy weapons–ignoring one of the core arguments of the other side, namely that dangerous criminals frequently ignore the law to obtain weapons, while law-abiding citizens bear the burden of new rules and restrictions. He reduced his opponents’ motives to pure politics, accusing them of being afraid of being punished by an organized, determined minority.

Rarely have Americans ever seen a president attack his opponents so viciously, expressing and evoking such visceral emotions–especially at a time of mourning. President Obama’s tirade contrasted with his reserved, measured response to the Boston Marathon bombings, in which he urged Americans to speak and act with restraint. If this has been, as he claimed, “a pretty shameful day in Washington,” the president’s tantrum was the most shameful moment of all.

RELATED ARTICLES

“The dam broke when McCain went on ‘Face the Nation,’ ” the aide said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has not been shy in criticizing McCain over the years, last week praised the Arizona Republican after the gun bill cleared a major procedural hurdle.

Earlier this month, McConnell and more than a dozen other GOP senators, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), vowed to filibuster the motion to proceed to the gun bill. At the time, it looked like gun control was slowly dying in the upper chamber.

But the tide turned when Toomey — who has an A rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) — announced at a press conference with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that they had struck a deal to expand background checks to cover all sales at gun shows and over the Internet.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said the prospects for gun legislation looked bleak at the start of last week.

“Days ago nobody thought we could move forward and we’re moving forward and I’m very, very hopeful about [this] week,” he said.

Democratic lawmakers said the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School victims, who flew to Washington with President Obama aboard Air Force One last week, have had a big impact. That White House decision, coupled with Obama’s use of the bully pulpit, helped change the dynamic.

Sixteen Republicans voted Thursday to begin debate on the gun violence package, even though Reid and McConnell had yet to reach an agreement on which amendments would be considered.

“I’m very optimistic,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who co-authored legislation to crack down on the illegal trafficking of firearms, which has been included in the base bill. “I think it matters that the families of the victims from Connecticut came to Washington.”

Gun-control advocates have also been helped by CNN’s and MSNBC’s reporting on an al Qaeda propaganda video in which a spokesman for the terrorist group urges potential jihadists to buy assault weapons at gun shows where background checks are not required for non-licensed sellers. Conservatives argue the video is misleading because the spokesman claims fully automatic weapons can be purchased, which is not true. Military-style semi-automatic firearms are legal since the gun ban Congress passed expired in 2004.

Democrats and Republicans alike say the gun violence package still faces a tortuous path to Senate passage and dimmer prospects in the GOP-led House.

“I think it would be very difficult, but I don’t know for sure,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.), one of the Republicans who voted to begin debate on the bill, when asked about its prospects for success.

The NRA, one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington, says it will score lawmakers for their votes on the Toomey-Manchin proposal to allow the broader package to move to a final vote. It remains to be seen if Toomey-Manchin will attract the necessary 60 votes. There are 55 senators who caucus with the Democrats, though a few from red states might defect. Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Susan Collins (Maine) are the only other Republicans who have publicly backed the measure.

Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, called the Toomey-Manchin deal “misguided” and warned the expansion of background checks would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by making the failure to comply with stricter regulations a felony.

Republican strategists acknowledge polls show the public favors expanded background checks by a 9-to-1 margin and that more people are paying attention to gun control.

“There’s no question that there’s been enormously greater attention to gun issues as a result of the horrible massacre, but I’m not convinced the fundamentals of politics have changed on this issue,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. “Intensity matters in politics and on no issue is intensity more important than on guns.”

Republicans have been slow to follow Toomey’s lead. But the deal appears to have given cover to at least some politically vulnerable Democrats.

“This plan represents a common sense solution reached by two of my colleagues —one a Democrat, one a Republican — and I plan to support the bipartisan proposal,” said Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who is up for reelection next year.

For the first time, the NRA is being matched by equally well-funded opponents: Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Independence USA PAC, groups backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who has made gun control his top national priority.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns spent $12 million on a lobbying campaign to pressure lawmakers over the Easter recess and director Mark Glaze says “we will spend as necessary.” The group planned 80 events in target states over the weekend.

Reid is negotiating with McConnell to set up a vote on Toomey-Manchin and other amendments early this week.

Expanded background checks are the heart of Obama’s gun control agenda. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called them the “sweet spot” of the issue.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) thinks the political landscape for gun control has changed in recent days: “The trend line, in terms of people’s concern, is increasing.”

Former Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), who pushed gun control bills when he served in the House, said, “The only argument is the camel’s nose under the tent, that this is the first step to banning guns or confiscating guns. You can’t vote based on that argument because then you’re not going to vote for anything.”